- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
That's the point. He pretends to know better but he doesn't.yeah but have you read them, its garbage
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's the point. He pretends to know better but he doesn't.yeah but have you read them, its garbage
No, that's a fallacy argument.That's the point. He pretends to know better but he doesn't.
It's not that you must try to produce film to be able to be a critic of it. Is is that if you ARE, as the Drinker IS, then the fact that you also produce terrible fiction weakens your reputation as a critic.No, that's a fallacy argument.
You can know what people are doing wrong and even know what they should be doing instead without being able to do it successfully yourself.
You're implying that only someone that can do something right can criticize others for doing it wrong. If that was the case, no film critic could ever be listened too. Siskel and Ebert? Could they make films? No? Then they can't say shit.
You. Can you make films? No? Then STFU.
See? It's a bullshit argument.
Drinker can levy all the criticisms he wants, if you want to disagree, do so about the substance of what he's saying instead of trying to outright dismiss because his books aren't very good (I haven't read them) and his short movie was crap (I haven't watched it despite posting it in this thread).
Also, nitpicking about his use of "the message" instead of "woke" is dumb. He likely does it because the term woke is so overused and will immediately make a lot of people tune out.
Well Roger Ebert helped make Valley of the Dolls, which was poorly regarded, and was still respected but I think that was because a lot of people weren't aware of his association pre-internet.It's not that you must try to produce film to be able to be a critic of it. Is is that if you ARE, as the Drinker IS, then the fact that you also produce terrible fiction weakens your reputation as a critic.
If the Drinker appears on YouTube bemoaning certain tropes or poorly written characters AND THEN immediately turns around and publishes a weak sauce novella with the exact same problem, doesn't that somewhat weaken his argument?
The reason we don't consider's Siskel's cinematic output is because there is not any. However, in the case where there is, should we be forced to ignore it?
Someone that smokes cigarettes can tell me how dangerous they are and that I should avoid them but they would be more credible if they followed their own advice.
I'm always reminded of the time he called his audience racist weirdos for not liking the race swap in GOW claiming "Bro, dragons aren't real either why do you care its a fantasy setting that's a really weird thing to care about bro."Because Drinker and the EFAP crowd have moved the woke goalpost after getting called out for having no issues with GOW R race-swapping Norse deities, praising that TLOU S1 episode with the same-sex couple, and giving the Amazon Fallout show a pass for butchering the established lore when they didn't do it for Rings of Power.
og film is a guilty pleasure movie thats bad but entertaining like catwoman was. 2018 one is not bad, mostly just mixes the then 2 games together and tries turning them into something coherent to varying degreesI watched one of his recent ones where he talks about the history of Tomb Raider movies
I did watch the 2018 one, and I don't really remember it, other than it tried to follow the character from the three modern Tomb Raider games rather than the original Laura Croft. I did see the 2001 film, but also remember little about it. Critical Drinker seems to praise the Angelina Jolie films, even for the generic video game movies that they were. I've pirated 4k/HDR copies of both the 2001/2003 movies to see if they really hold up, or if CD is choking on the vomit of his own nostalgia.
Only reason CD is jack off to the 2001 Jolie movies is because guys like him prob jacked off to her and how she looked like Lara. Take that out and both those movies make even less sense the OG Tomb Raider games and the CGI was equally shit.I watched one of his recent ones where he talks about the history of Tomb Raider movies
I did watch the 2018 one, and I don't really remember it, other than it tried to follow the character from the three modern Tomb Raider games rather than the original Laura Croft. I did see the 2001 film, but also remember little about it. Critical Drinker seems to praise the Angelina Jolie films, even for the generic video game movies that they were. I've pirated 4k/HDR copies of both the 2001/2003 movies to see if they really hold up, or if CD is choking on the vomit of his own nostalgia.
You could just watch the movie Gia for that purpose.Only reason CD is jack off to the 2001 Jolie movies is because guys like him prob jacked off to her and how she looked like Lara. Take that out and both those movies make even less sense the OG Tomb Raider games and the CGI was equally shit.
He wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls." It was poorly received upon release, but it's gone through a reevaluation over the years. Not saying it's considered a masterpiece now, but it's looked at much more favorably than before. Definitely has a cult following.Roger Ebert helped make Valley of the Dolls, which was poorly regarded
I haven't read them. I know I'm in KF thread and he definitely has some lolcow moments, but until I read some of the things he's written, I really can't tell. Maybe they are just "ok enough".yeah but have you read them, its garbage
There's a reason his books are called "Dollar store Jack Reacher"I haven't read them. I know I'm in KF thread and he definitely has some lolcow moments, but until I read some of the things he's written, I really can't tell. Maybe they are just "ok enough".
I haven't watched the After Hours podcast, but apparently he changed his tune about it there. It's hard to take him at his word when that word changes in only a couple of days - he did a glowing review for Endgame back in the day for example, when all of them now say it was a low point for Marvel."I'm not giving spoilers because this is slop that I approve."
The only time his ass didnt flip flop was when he was sucking off two of Ben Shapiros cinematic trash heaps.I haven't watched the After Hours podcast, but apparently he changed his tune about it there. It's hard to take him at his word when that word changes in only a couple of days - he did a glowing review for Endgame back in the day for example, when all of them now say it was a low point for Marvel.
It's almost as if he flip-flops on opinions the moment he discovers which way the wind is blowing...
Black Panther and Game of Thrones as well. I didn't see them in real-time, but it looks as if he went against the grain of popular opinion. Nowadays he doesn't choose any hills to stubbornly die on anymore.The only time his ass didnt flip flop was when he was sucking off two of Ben Shapiros cinematic trash heaps.
Let's not pretend that mere garbage ISN'T a massive upgrade over the worthless dogshit that Hymiewood has been sharting out the last decade+.yeah but have you read them, its garbage